Spending billions in taxpayer dollars with no clear progress? Inserting government agents into Americans' private lives? Holding a million men and women in prison for what are mostly nonviolent crimes?

Please, how does any of that promote the values that principled conservatives hold dear?

None of it does, of course.

But now, seemingly all of a sudden, people on the left aren't the only ones expressing doubts about America's war on (some) drugs. Some of America's most energized conservatives - activists and intellectuals on the right - are openly asking, "Isn't there a better way to deal with drug abuse than the old lock-'em-up-forever approach?"

At week's end, thousands of conservative activists gathered in Washington for the annual CPAC, the massive Conservative Police Action Conference, half pep rally and half conservative family reunion. The attendees were regaled with the usual conservative litany - warnings about illegal immigration, attacks on the liberal media, throaty calls for a muscular war on terrorism. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove revved up the crowd.

"Conservatism is the dominant political creed in America," Rove declared approvingly.

But this power group of fired-up conservatives also heard something else, a message that seemed to come as a surprise to some in the sprawling meeting room: pointed and serious questions about America's 35-year campaign to rid the nation of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs.

Who'd have expected this at a CPAC meeting? Extended comments from the podium by Ethan Nadelman, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a man who has been called the invisible hand of drug reform in America. A former Princeton University professor, Nadelman has guided the national fight for medical marijuana and been a key player in the battle to ease the draconian Rockefeller-era drug laws in New York.

Yet some on this board will similarly say that if marijuana were legal, it would be cheap.

I would agree with them. The current situation in CA is not necessarily representative of what would happen were cannabis to be made completely legal. According to the feds, cannabis is not currently legal in CA, so how can you argue that the current price is comparable?

What is the profit margin on a pack of cigarettes? What makes you think that Altria or a similar company wouldn't add cannabis to their line? Prices are high because supply is constrained by current law. If it were to become completely legal, do you honestly believe that a plant that grows everywhere could command such premiums? It is the risk of arrest that is causing high prices.

Or legal, but regulated, like cigarettes? Who's to say that it won't be taxed at $200./oz.?

The pro-pot posters on this board seem to make whatever argument suits them at the time. Some say to legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it. Then you come along and say legalize it and it will be cheap.

Well, what's it gonna be, people?

"What makes you think that Altria or a similar company wouldn't add cannabis to their line?"

Will you give them immunity from lawsuits? Or should they take a hint from the tobacco companies and build up a huge contingency fund by charging what the market will bear -- and the market bears a whole bunch today, doesn't it?

You gave me nothing. Your numbers come from the Household Survey. They call you on the phone and ask, "how many illegal drugs have you used in the last month?". This is not science. Now, lets look at your claim: "Illegal drug use has declined 60% since 1979". There were 496,000 illegal drug arrests in 1979. Then, in post 286, you say there were "1.5 million drug arrests last year". Where is that 60% decrease?

The 1986 legislation that funded and escalated the Drug War was named "The Drug Free America Act." Its explicit aim was to make America "drug free in 10 years". Are we drug free? How much more money will it take to reach that goal you've failed at?

This reponse was for a different statement, but an equally ludicrous one, made by you

Again, you try to spin. My comment was a reply to another poster and specific to his comment. Not only did you take it out of context, you edited it. Shows just how dishonest you Crusaders are.

Bull$hit. Prove it, bucko.

I just did. Thanks for the help. The 1.5 million arrests you posted saved me the trouble of looking it up.

Again I ask, show me a success that justifies the tax dollars spent on your Sin War. Prove it, Bucko! .

307
posted on 02/22/2006 2:04:28 PM PST
by mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)

There ought to be an island these people can go to where they can smoke all the weed they want and not endanger the rest of us or corrupt out children. Of course, someone would have to support this island, because no one there would want to do any work.

312
posted on 02/22/2006 3:18:24 PM PST
by attiladhun2
(evolution has both deified and degraded humanity)

If drug use decreased 60% from 1979, how could there possibly be 1.5 million illegal drug arrests last year?

Most kids smoke marijuana as their illicit drug of choice. Marijuana use is down. Less kids are smoking.

How can that possibly be? You guys told us that teen use of marijuana would skyrocket in California if we passed the medical marijuana initiative. You warned us that "carnage on the highways" and "kids hooked on hard drugs" would be the result of relaxing marijuana prohibition. You were wrong. Teen use went down. Teen use of all illegal drugs has gone down everywhere marijuana laws have been relaxed. You want to claim that as a drug war success?

And that's worth one half of one percent of the federal budget. That makes twice now that I've answered your question

You still haven't answered the question. You still have not shown a decrease in anything that can be attributed to the Sin War.

Since you obviosly can't justify the expenditure, we may as well move on. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution now trumps the Constitution itself. That was done to enforce marijuana prohibition. We are now the property of the US government with no right to self determination.

How do you justify that? .

313
posted on 02/22/2006 3:18:42 PM PST
by mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)

The pro-pot posters on this board seem to make whatever argument suits them at the time. Some say to legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it. Then you come along and say legalize it and it will be cheap.

Let's leave it just like it is. Ain't it wonderful? We've got the whole underworld smuggling, killing and laundering U.S. currency.

Without having lived in the contraband substance world - you couldn't understand the nuanced systems of relationships and distribution channels. It's really like one large multilevel marketing scheme that can change directions of flow in short order. Then when anyone is "busted" and branded with some label that handicaps employment opportunities, what might be the vocation of choice? - - - - - Hey, can you help me move these baggies of (your choice)?

316
posted on 02/22/2006 4:36:59 PM PST
by winston2
(In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in all things charity:)

In an environment of perfect liberty, winston2 is still missing the costs of fertilizer, land and labor. So yes, I believe he is mistaken. However, the CA medical cannabis environment is far perfect liberty, as you well know. Next question.

Yes, I did leave out fertilizer, land and labor.

The reason for leaving out fertilizer is that cannabis will grow on the most marginal of land and doesn't need notable amounts of fertilizer. Even if it did, the cost per plant would be in the small numbers of pennies.

The reason that I don't mention land is that we live in a land rich nation. A few patio "pots" would grow a years supply for anyone.

As far as "labor" It falls clearly under the heading labor of love.

320
posted on 02/22/2006 6:08:09 PM PST
by winston2
(In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in all things charity:)

It sure is. That Commerce Clause decision has sent people flocking to the legalization side. I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone now sees their liberties in danger from this Sin War. .

330
posted on 02/22/2006 7:01:33 PM PST
by mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)

No, I said that the markup (mostly to growers who take the largest risks) on cannabis is because of the risks involved due to its illegality. Altria (Phillip Morris) doesn't have the kind of profits because there are no legal risks. Simple market dynamics. Reduce the legal risks and the profit margin will collapse. Only government can make a simple to grow plant worth its weight in gold.

Well, if we're going to talk about profits, what about the $250 billion per year laundered through Wall Street? What about the Media Mergers financed by drug money? What about the politicians who recieve drug money as campaign contributions to keep drugs illegal?

"California, Florida, Texas and New York are, far and away, the states where most illegal drugs enter the United States. California, Florida, Texas and New York are also the states responsible for laundering most of the $200-250 billion dollars of drug money that pass through the U.S. economy and banking system every year...Eighty per cent of all Presidential campaign contributions come from California, Florida, Texas and New York."...Catherine Austin Fitts, Managing Director of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon Read, and Assistant Secretary at HUD

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.